DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42883>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42883





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-08-22 04:47 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> 
> 1) SavableTabSetting - Can this be a normal Java bean with getters/settings? 
> It's stylistic, and I know this is a simple class but I'd prefer it with
> getters/setters
OK. Done in the new patch...
> 2) ChainsawTabbedPane - Can this implement the SettingsListener interface and
> use the standard save/load call backs that provides?
Yes. Done in the new patch..
> 3) This patch might now be slightly out of date, it's not applying cleanly at
> all.  The LogUI file has 2 patch chunks that don't apply cleanly:
> 
> 
> @@ -2055,8 +2073,10 @@
>                if (
>                  getTabbedPane().getSelectedIndex() == getTabbedPane()
>                                                            
> .indexOfTab(ident)) {
> -                getTabbedPane().setIconAt(
> -                  getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident), SELECTED);
> +                if(getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident) > 0){
> +                  getTabbedPane().setIconAt(
> +                    getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident), SELECTED);
> +                }
>                  newEvents = false;
>                  seenEvents = true;
>                } else if (getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident) > -1) {
> 
> and 
> 
> @@ -2094,7 +2114,7 @@
>  
>      public void stateChanged(ChangeEvent event) {
>        if (
> -        getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident) ==
getTabbedPane().getSelectedIndex()) {
> +        getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident) == 
> getTabbedPane().getSelectedIndex()
> && getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident) > 0) {
>          getTabbedPane().setIconAt(getTabbedPane().indexOfTab(ident), 
> SELECTED);
>        }
>      }
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure why.. Can you double check ?  Does it apply cleanly for 
> you?

There was a bug in those two statements and I had fixed it in the previous
patch. But after that someone has committed that fix. So that why it was
conflicting. These two statements are not included in the new patch as it is
already fixed.
New patch applies without any problem. Please check it...



-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to